I am just never a proponent of interventionism so you know where I stand. I feel like with your kerrys, mccains, grahams, obamas, rubios, cruzs, coburns all on the same side it is only a matter of time before we are over their for humanitarian aid also known as maintaining infrastructure. Heck we just have too big a hearts we were first on the ground in Monrovia, Rwandan, etc!!!

Do you think we will intervene? Whomever voices an opinion and loses must change there avatar to a politician they oppose for a week

We will intervene

(09-03-2013 09:17 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  We will intervene

What will that intervention mean?
What will we do?
What will be the impact?
What is next if it goes badly?

These are the questions the House of Congress should address. I'm answering the question will we intervene.

90% sure we will.

It will be meant to hurt Assad.

Bomb HQ's and military targets.

It won't decapitate the leadership unless we get lucky or have good intel.

WWIII? Worst Case scenario? You WON'T see boots on the ground. So badly will be limited in scope. My guess

Liberal liberals. We will not intervene.

(09-03-2013 09:46 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  These are the questions the House of Congress should address. I'm answering the question will we intervene.
90% sure we will.
It will be meant to hurt Assad.
Bomb HQ's and military targets.
It won't decapitate the leadership unless we get lucky or have good intel.
WWIII? Worst Case scenario? You WON'T see boots on the ground. So badly will be limited in scope. My guess

And when it's over Assad will say, "Ha, ha, didn't get me." And then he'll say, "That sucked, but they've already made it clear that it's limited to one-and-done. So guess what, we're back in business."

Then what?

As I've said many times, I don't believe in limited military actions.

But if I were tasked with drawing one up in this case, my primary targets would be the same as I've said before--presidential palace(s), preferably with the wife and kids at home if not Assad himself; the parliament building, preferably with parliament in session; and the secret police HQ.

(09-03-2013 09:17 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  We will intervene

Yep, and when we do, it will be O's war.

Funny thing about boots on the ground though. Once you go down this road, one never knows where it'll end up.

(09-03-2013 09:15 PM)WPDAWG08 Wrote:  I am just never a proponent of interventionism so you know where I stand. I feel like with your kerrys, mccains, grahams, obamas, rubios, cruzs, coburns all on the same side it is only a matter of time before we are over their for humanitarian aid also known as maintaining infrastructure. Heck we just have too big a hearts we were first on the ground in Monrovia, Rwandan, etc!!!

Do you think we will intervene? Whomever voices an opinion and loses must change there avatar to a politician they oppose for a week

Ted Cruz is not on the same side.

Quote:On Syria, Cruz said it is unlikely that he would support military action.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/a...784617.php

Quote:Ted Cruz Warns on Syria: U.S. Military Shouldn’t ‘Serve as Al-Qaeda’s Air Force’

http://www.mediaite.com/online/ted-cruz-...air-force/

(09-04-2013 08:28 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 09:17 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  We will intervene

Yep, and when we do, it will be O's war.

Funny thing about boots on the ground though. Once you go down this road, one never knows where it'll end up.

There will be boots on the ground. With Afghanistan closing down, FLUOR, KBR, and Dyncorp will need new contracts for the same crap so they can hire and fail to feed more third country nationals so the CEOs in Texas and DC can get their bonuses and get invited to the metro area wine and cheese parties.

I agree Ever. They "complex" needs a crisis somewhere. The cynic will say they just change the name on the check register to who they donate. It's crazy.

(09-04-2013 08:37 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(09-04-2013 08:28 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(09-03-2013 09:17 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  We will intervene

Yep, and when we do, it will be O's war.

Funny thing about boots on the ground though. Once you go down this road, one never knows where it'll end up.

There will be boots on the ground. With Afghanistan closing down, FLUOR, KBR, and Dyncorp will need new contracts for the same crap so they can hire and fail to feed more third country nationals so the CEOs in Texas and DC can get their bonuses and get invited to the metro area wine and cheese parties.

All of this.

I think that's the reason for going to congress. He says he wants a surgical strike. He can do that without congress--Reagan and Libya. What he can't do without congress is ramp it up and continue it. And the surgical strike will accomplish nothing of value. So then he says, well congress has approved action, so here we go.

Very smart politically. Very dumb in terms of results.

When Assad gets through the Obama tantrum unscathed, what will prevent him (or the rebels) from another chemical attack? What does Obama do then? Escalate?

I see few, if any good options without it spiraling out of control completely and sucking in many if not most of the bad actors that aren't already there. Turns into a much wider war.

Obama has already demonstrated that he can destabilize the region. How much have you heard lately about Libya? It has turned into a disaster of epic purportions, with a central government unable to control much of the country. Yet, our press has moved on and is not reporting on what is occurring there.

Quote:Yet now Libya has almost entirely stopped producing oil as the government loses control of much of the country to militia fighters.

Mutinying security men have taken over oil ports on the Mediterranean and are seeking to sell crude oil on the black market. Ali Zeidan, Libya’s Prime Minister, has threatened to “bomb from the air and the sea” any oil tanker trying to pick up the illicit oil from the oil terminal guards, who are mostly former rebels who overthrew Muammar Gaddafi and have been on strike over low pay and alleged government corruption since July.

As world attention focused on the coup in Egypt and the poison gas attack in Syria over the past two months, Libya has plunged unnoticed into its worst political and economic crisis since the defeat of Gaddafi two years ago. Government authority is disintegrating in all parts of the country putting in doubt claims by American, British and French politicians that Nato’s military action in Libya in 2011 was an outstanding example of a successful foreign military intervention which should be repeated in Syria.

In an escalating crisis little regarded hitherto outside the oil markets, output of Libya’s prized high-quality crude oil has plunged from 1.4 million barrels a day earlier this year to just 160,000 barrels a day now. Despite threats to use military force to retake the oil ports, the government in Tripoli has been unable to move effectively against striking guards and mutinous military units that are linked to secessionist forces in the east of the country.

Libyans are increasingly at the mercy of militias which act outside the law. Popular protests against militiamen have been met with gunfire; 31 demonstrators were shot dead and many others wounded as they protested outside the barracks of “the Libyan Shield Brigade” in the eastern capital Benghazi in June.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...97041.html

(09-04-2013 01:15 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  When Assad gets through the Obama tantrum unscathed, what will prevent him (or the rebels) from another chemical attack? What does Obama do then? Escalate?

I see few, if any good options without it spiraling out of control completely and sucking in many if not most of the bad actors that aren't already there. Turns into a much wider war.

Obama has already demonstrated that he can destabilize the region. How much have you heard lately about Libya? It has turned into a disaster of epic purportions, with a central government unable to control much of the country. Yet, our press has moved on and is not reporting on what is occurring there.

Are you saying Libya was a war for oil? This wasn't America's doing, it was Italy, France, and England (IIRC) that drew us in.

At least Syria has the virtual of being a wasteland with no oil (at least they are a net importer of oil).

(09-04-2013 01:37 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Are you saying Libya was a war for oil? This wasn't America's doing, it was Italy, France, and England (IIRC) that drew us in.

At least Syria has the virtual of being a wasteland with no oil (at least they are a net importer of oil).

No, not saying any such thing. Just pointing out that others see the Libya intervention in terms of its' outcome, which is a disaster for all involved. Those European countries didn't draw "US" in. It drew Obama in while many here were saying, "don't do it, don't get involved."

Obama has been gung ho to topple one leader after another, as distasteful as those dictators were, without any idea of who would rush in to the power vacuum to fill it. If he knew or even suspected that Islamic jihadists or his buds in the MB would fill that void, it's even more disgusting.

Whatever happened to the Pottery Barn metaphor? "You break it, you bought it."

Pelosi just came out and doesn't think the resolution will have the votes in the House. Obama doesn't have it to go at it alone. We may not strike.

(09-05-2013 12:40 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Pelosi just came out and doesn't think the resolution will have the votes in the House. Obama doesn't have it to go at it alone. We may not strike.

Translation: Pelosi can't get the democrats onboard. Stand by for some Cornhusker Kickbacks.

(09-05-2013 12:40 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Pelosi just came out and doesn't think the resolution will have the votes in the House. Obama doesn't have it to go at it alone. We may not strike.

And the president was heard to whisper to himself, "Thank you, Jesus."

I do not see Obama playing chess with the GOP at all here (as Mack has stated). What I see is a president who can rub the noses of his supporters in sh!t and they yell, can I have another.